memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Jonathan Archer/archive
Scotty and Archer's Beagle I made a note that the incident with Archer's beagle was in the alternate reality since the article didn't make that clear. My only other concern is that Scotty only says "Admiral Archer" and at this point in time Archer had stepped down as President of the Federation. Nowhere is it stated that he rejoined Starfleet and he would have been called "President Archer" since that was his highest position. It is possible that this is one of his descendants or another admiral who happens to be named Archer. Should the fact that it is not explicitly stated to be this Archer be noted? Also, Scotty was born in 2222 so his birthday wasn't affected by the alternate timeline and he was 11 when the Narada changed the timeline so the beagle incident would have been after the timeline change.IndyK1ng 23:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) : Which is why i removed the ref altogether, seeing as "Admiral Archer" is mentioned in the top disambig on the page. Honestly, we can only speculate, but the namedrop (in combination with the beagle ref) is too close to be a coincidence. Unfortunately it would seem that unless it was stated in dialog or by the writers as being intentional, then it is a different person. --Alan 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ::While I agree that the reference shouldn't be mentioned in the in-universe portion of the article, I think the reference is clear enough to go into the "Background" section. We don't know in-universe whether Archer is Jonathan Archer; however, it's quite clear that out-of-universe, the combination of "Archer" and "beagle" is a reference (direct or indirect) to Enterprise's captain. —Josiah Rowe 03:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::I found a quotation from Kurtzman and Orci confirming that "Admiral Archer" is an Enterprise reference. http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_16696.html: :::Alex: Admiral Archer gets referenced. :::Bob: That’s Enterprise. ::Hope that helps. —Josiah Rowe 05:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC) A reference does not mean it is the same Archer. See this article's background section and the section in the article on Admiral Archer.IndyK1ng 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::I know that. I wrote some of those sections, and I'm not advocating moving the text to the in-universe sections of the article, or merging Archer with Jonathan Archer. I was just pointing out that the writers had confirmed that it was an intentional reference. —Josiah Rowe 05:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::Actually, upon reflection, I think we could treat this the same way that we treat Picard's remark about having met Sarek at "his son's wedding" in the Spock article. We didn't create a separate page for "unnamed son of Sarek" based on that line; we accepted the writers' expressed intention that Picard was referring to Spock, and mention it (with a caveat) in Spock. Why can't we do the same here? —Josiah Rowe 20:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :::It just seems ridiculous that Scotty could have met an Admiral Archer who was actually Jonathan Archer in the timeframe we are discussing. At the time of Scotty's birth in the early 23rd century, Archer would already have been about 100 years old, having been born in the early 22nd century. By the time Scotty would have been able to operate or modify a transporter, even as a young man, would make Archer well over 100, approaching 150 even. Even if Scotty got a hold of his dog after Archer's passing, Archer was mentioned to be a former President of the Federation in his 23rd century bio in the ENT finale, making it odd that he would be referred to as "admiral" rather than "president". This is different from the Sarek case in that it was fully possible for Spock to be that unnamed son of Sarek (especially since we knew Sarek to be quite old and Spock's only brother to be deceased), this one is more unlikely and thus makes it more difficult to accept as an assumption. -- Captain MKB 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Was it Jonathan Archer? Maybe. Was it Porthos? No. A dog living for a century? That's a bit unlikely even for Star Trek. I kinda think it was Archer's kid, but if it was the same dog probably not.- JustPhil 21:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::I agree that it's highly improbable that the dog was Porthos. But barring Archer's presidency, it seems quite possible that the admiral was Archer. Was Archer's presidency mentioned in the ENT finale? The article suggests that it comes from "In a Mirror, Darkly". I haven't seen either episode since their initial broadcast, and I don't recall whether the detail about Archer becoming president of the Federation was from dialogue in either episode or from the biographical display. If the latter, it can be put aside, the way we put aside the details of Archer's death. If the former, then that presents more of a problem for identifying Scotty's admiral as Jonathan Archer. —Josiah Rowe 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :::::The detail about Archer's presidency is from the bio screen, so yes, it's "secondary tier" canon. Additionally, Scotty's use of the phrase "prize beagle" instead of "pet beagle" could suggest that Archer became a breeder of beagles, after Porthos. -- 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::Right, then. If the presidency comes from the info screen, which Mike Sussman himself said wasn't necessarily canonical, I think we should go with something said on screen rather than something from an info screen. ::Heck, maybe the timelines diverge earlier than we thought. Perhaps in the "prime" timeline, Archer became President of the Federation in 2184, but in the new timeline he never served in that post. After all, the Defiant came from the "prime" timeline, and Scotty beamed the beagle in the new one... but now I'm being speculative and silly. ::Seriously, I think that given the writers' stated intent, this is the same as the "Sarek's son" situation. Which means that Archer should be merged back here. —Josiah Rowe 04:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::Note: in the United States, former presidents (and vice-presidents) properly revert to their previous titles. So it's entirely reasonable that Archer would revert to "Admiral" after his term as Federation president was complete. Powers 03:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :::::::Bones was 137 and healthy in . —Scott (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Really? I have never heard anyone refer to George HW Bush as "Lieutenant Bush", but have heard him called "Mr President" many times since 1993. Dangerdan97 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)